ALL have sinned.

[blü 2]

As l stated before, if you reject Genesis 1:1, you reject the whole Bible.

No, I accept the bible as a collection of ancient texts about various things by various authors at various times and places, remarkably well preserved and full of insights into one branch of ancient thought. Some of the purported history is accurate, some is not. There may not have been an Egyptian captivity or a Moses, according to the archaeology, for example.

If you find it hard to believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived

Unless she was only partly a she, there's no way, even with a very rare example of parthenogenesis, that she could have born a boy.

then you'll also reject Noah's building of the Ark

The evidence against a real worldwide Noah's Flood is overwhelming, unignorably huge.

Abraham having a son, Joseph's dream interpretations, Moses' signs and wonders etc etc.

Each needs to be looked to work out what it's about, but basically, yes, none of that is literally true.

Then, of course, we have a New Testament full of miracles, not least the resurrection.

Yes, I don't believe in magic, and the resurrection is not only magic, but as a report some or other ancient mystery, a forensic disaster, with no eyewitness, no contemporary report, no independent report. That's apart from innately having no credibility.

Take all these out and you're left with a meaningless account that has no consistency or coherence. It's been attempted by some historians and fails miserably.

Yes, it's not coherent because it was no more meant to be a unitary tale than the classifieds of the New York Times ─ each part has its own author or authors and their own purposes. But like the New York Times classifieds, the writers are writing within a tradition.

IMO, what is written in the Bible is a prophecy, inspired by God. To suggest that men concocted the stories infers that they had reason to lie and deceive others.

Perhaps they did, but there's no necessity for such a conclusion. Way back then all the Canaanite tribes had their gods, largely within the Semitic tradition. At the start of the bible, Yahweh is simply one of them, thought by his followers to be the most powerful, though I dare say each tribe thought its god the most powerful.

So what was their motivation, and how did they collude over 1500 years to produce this lie?

It isn't a lie to them. It's what you do, it's how you account for the weather, the famines, the plagues, good and bad luck at hunting fishing love and war, birth, death, and so on. We find supernatural beings of various kinds in virtually all cultures ─ they're clearly an artifact of how our brains have evolved, presumably to do with our curiosity and craving for explanations, and our instincts for tribal identity and solidarity with shared language, customs, heroes, stories and religions.

Josephus wrote his 'Antiquities' in an historical style but it's noticeable that he did not extract the miracles and wonders from his account of lsrael's Exodus from Egypt.

The first writer of history to use what we'd say was early historical method was Herodotos in the 5th century BCE, sharpened very shortly after by Thucydides. Up till then there was often little difference between history and story. Clearly the NT authors, despite their training in Greek, did not use historical method.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, I accept the bible as a collection of ancient texts about various things by various authors at various times and places, remarkably well preserved and full of insights into one branch of ancient thought. Some of the purported history is accurate, some is not. There may not have been an Egyptian captivity or a Moses, according to the archaeology, for example.
Unless she was only partly a she, there's no way, even with a very rare example of parthenogenesis, that she could have born a boy.
The evidence against a real worldwide Noah's Flood is overwhelming, unignorably huge.
Each needs to be looked to work out what it's about, but basically, yes, none of that is literally true. Yes, I don't believe in magic, and the resurrection is not only magic, but as a report some or other ancient mystery, a forensic disaster, with no eyewitness, no contemporary report, no independent report. That's apart from innately having no credibility.
Yes, it's not coherent because it was no more meant to be a unitary tale than the classifieds of the New York Times ─ each part has its own author or authors and their own purposes. But like the New York Times classifieds, the writers are writing within a tradition.
Perhaps they did, but there's no necessity for such a conclusion. Way back then all the Canaanite tribes had their gods, largely within the Semitic tradition. At the start of the bible, Yahweh is simply one of them, thought by his followers to be the most powerful, though I dare say each tribe thought its god the most powerful.
It isn't a lie to them. It's what you do, it's how you account for the weather, the famines, the plagues, good and bad luck at hunting fishing love and war, birth, death, and so on. We find supernatural beings of various kinds in virtually all cultures ─ they're clearly an artifact of how our brains have evolved, presumably to do with our curiosity and craving for explanations, and our instincts for tribal identity and solidarity with shared language, customs, heroes, stories and religions.
The first writer of history to use what we'd say was early historical method was Herodotos in the 5th century BCE, sharpened very shortly after by Thucydides. Up till then there was often little difference between history and story. Clearly the NT authors, despite their training in Greek, did not use historical method.

At the start of the Bible there is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth.

The reason Biblical writers did not use a dry 'historical method' is because the Bible is not just a history. It's a revelation of God's will and intention, focusing the mind of the reader not only on past events but upon the sin and redemption of mankind. IMO, there is a richness to scripture that is unmatched in all of literature.

And, yes, scripture does offer us the eyewitness accounts. Mary, wife to Joseph, for example, is the only one able to furnish Luke and Matthew with all the birth details required. Mary was alive at the crucifixion of Jesus and lived thereafter with John. Unless she suffered from dementia, all the details would have been made known to the disciples who lived together communally in Jerusalem [Acts 4:31-37]. How likely is it that she would have mistaken her enrolment in Bethlehem with a later taxation in Nazareth? None. Such a mistake would also take years off the life of Jesus, making him a man in his early twenties when baptised by John, not 'about thirty' which is the age specified in scripture.

It is no accident that Jesus chose twelve men to be his closest companions in life and ministry. They were witnesses to nearly everything that Jesus said and did. They provide us with better authority and testimony than for any other historical figure of the times; yet people would sooner believe in a Caesar than in Christ.

So, maybe, this is not about the quality of the evidence but about the nature of the person of Christ, who, for some, is simply too good to be true. No matter how much evidence is presented, a sceptic and atheist will be in denial. Back to Psalm 14! Back to Genesis 1:1!

 

[Justanatheist]

It is no accident that Jesus chose twelve men to be his closest companions in life and ministry. They were witnesses to nearly everything that Jesus said and did. They provide us with better authority and testimony than for any other historical figure of the times; yet people would sooner believe in a Caesar than in Christ.

We have zero writings from Jesus, zero accounts of him during his lifetime and zero accounts from people who met him. Caeser on the other hand left his own writing, account by named historians and most importantly all the non literary evidence like coins etc.

Show me some evidence for Jesus like this,

 

[blü 2]

At the start of the Bible there is but one God, the creator of heaven and earth.

The reason Biblical writers did not use a dry 'historical method' is because the Bible is not just a history. It's a revelation of God's will and intention, focusing the mind of the reader not only on past events but upon the sin and redemption of mankind. IMO, there is a richness to scripture that is unmatched in all of literature.

And, yes, scripture does offer us the eyewitness accounts. Mary, husband to Joseph, for example, is the only one able to furnish Luke and Matthew with all the birth details required. Mary was alive at the crucifixion of Jesus and lived thereafter with John. Unless she suffered from dementia, all the details would have been made known to the disciples who lived together communally in Jerusalem [Acts 4:31-37]. How likely is it that she would have mistaken her enrolment in Bethlehem with a later taxation in Nazareth? None. Such a mistake would also take years off the life of Jesus, making him a man in his early twenties when baptised by John, not 'about thirty' which is the age specified in scripture.

It is no accident that Jesus chose twelve men to be his closest companions in life and ministry. They were witnesses to nearly everything that Jesus said and did. They provide us with better authority and testimony than for any other historical figure of the times; yet people would sooner believe in a Caesar than in Christ.

So, maybe, this is not about the quality of the evidence but about the nature of the person of Christ, who, for some, is simply too good to be true. No matter how much evidence is presented, a sceptic and atheist will be in denial. Back to Psalm 14! Back to Genesis 1:1!

Then let us agree that our views about the bible and our views about the supernatural are entirely irreconcilable ─ and wish each other long and happy life and leave it at that.

 

[Alex22]

Sinning against your god is fun.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Then let us agree that our views about the bible and our views about the supernatural are entirely irreconcilable ─ and wish each other long and happy life and leave it at that.

The blessing of the priests on the children of lsrael is found in Numbers 6:
'The LORD bless thee and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

We have zero writings from Jesus, zero accounts of him during his lifetime and zero accounts from people who met him. Caeser on the other hand left his own writing, account by named historians and most importantly all the non literary evidence like coins etc.

Show me some evidence for Jesus like this,

View attachment 53033

The gift of Holy Spirit left by Jesus provides us with far more knowledge of Christ than a horde of coins could ever provide.

 

[Justanatheist]

The gift of Holy Spirit left by Jesus provides us with far more knowledge of Christ than a horde of coins could ever provide.

As is often the case when debating some Christians you have moved the goalposts.

It is no accident that Jesus chose twelve men to be his closest companions in life and ministry. They were witnesses to nearly everything that Jesus said and did. They provide us with better authority and testimony than for any other historical figure of the times; yet people would sooner believe in a Caesar than in Christ.

I directly rebutted your assertion that the twelve men left us better authority and testimony than there is for Caesar, all you come back with is some fluff about the holy spirit. Now do you accept that your assertions are wrong and there is more empirical evidence for Caesar than for Jesus?

 

[Redemptionsong]

As is often the case when debating some Christians you have moved the goalposts.


I directly rebutted your assertion that the twelve men left us better authority and testimony than there is for Caesar, all you come back with is some fluff about the holy spirit. Now do you accept that your assertions are wrong and there is more empirical evidence for Caesar than for Jesus?

This is an alternative:
Sources for Caesar and Jesus Compared

The issue of evidence will always be a matter of disagreement between atheists and theists. As it says in Hebrews 11, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

Atheists only have one form of evidence - 'seeing is believing'. Having faith enables a person to witness things that would otherwise not happen; this is because faith pleases God, and God acts in response to faith. I believe that the Holy Spirit is valid evidence, although unseen in itself, because the invisible Church (to which I belong) has been witness to the work of the Holy Spirit for thousands of years. Believing is seeing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sinning against your god is fun.

I'm sure the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah said the same thing.

You should read the three chapters of the epistle, 2 Peter. It might have a sobering effect.

 

[Alex22]

I'm sure the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah said the same thing.

You should read the three chapters of the epistle, 2 Peter. It might have a sobering effect.

Why would I read garbage?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Hebrew scriptures portray God as Holy and without defect.

Deuteronomy 32:4. 'He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.'

The Greek New Testament tells us about Jesus Christ 'Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:' [1 Peter 2:22] The book of Hebrews adds that Jesus 'was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.'

The New Testament also tells us about the Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father and Son. 'But when the Comforter is come, whom I [Jesus] will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:'

We have, if one is to accept the words of scripture, a God who is Holy and perfect.

Does that not make us ALL'sinners'?

If we are all sinners, then critical reasoning in the absence of repentance and faith is not going to please God! Only faith will please God. As Paul said in Romans 14:23, 'whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'

Your thoughts, please.

As a Jew, I of course do not consider the New Testament authoritative. In the Tanakh (OT), the standard of righteousness was never perfection. You can be a good person, and screw up sometimes. Christians are the only group of people who don't understand that, because they are indoctrinated into Paul's mistake. Breaking one law does NOT mean I have broken them all. If I speed on the freeway, it doesn't make me a murderer. There is a big difference between the person who aspires to keep the Law, screws up occasionally, and then repents and returns to God's ways, and a person who lives a habitual lifestyle of sin without concern for the Law.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As a Jew, I of course do not consider the New Testament authoritative. In the Tanakh (OT), the standard of righteousness was never perfection. You can be a good person, and screw up sometimes. Christians are the only group of people who don't understand that, because they are indoctrinated into Paul's mistake. Breaking one law does NOT mean I have broken them all. If I speed on the freeway, it doesn't make me a murderer. There is a big difference between the person who aspires to keep the Law, screws up occasionally, and then repents and returns to God's ways, and a person who lives a habitual lifestyle of sin without concern for the Law.

To suggest that the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, did not know the Law, is a mistake. He knew very well that the Law was to be kept in full. As Moses says, 'Set your hearts unto all the words which l testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law.'

The demand of the Law is to do all the law, thereby achieving righteouness under the law.

Had this righteouness under the Law been achieved by lsrael, then the curses warned of by Moses would never have come to pass.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To suggest that the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, did not know the Law, is a mistake. He knew very well that the Law was to be kept in full. As Moses says, 'Set your hearts unto all the words which l testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law.'

The demand of the Law is to do all the law, thereby achieving righteouness under the law.

Had this righteouness under the Law been achieved by lsrael, then the curses warned of by Moses would never have come to pass.

First of all, I don't believe for a second that Paul was a Pharisee -- he simply lied about this. His pre-Christian record, according to Acts, was that he worked for the Sadducees in the temple as a temple guard. Gamaliel, on behalf of the Pharisees, said to leave the Christians alone. Paul didn't. That doesn't sound like student of Gamaliel to me.

And you are quite mistaken. You do not have to be perfect in order to be considered righteous. That is not the teaching of the Tanakh.

 

[Redemptionsong]

First of all, I don't believe for a second that Paul was a Pharisee -- he simply lied about this. His pre-Christian record, according to Acts, was that he worked for the Sadducees in the temple as a temple guard. Gamaliel, on behalf of the Pharisees, said to leave the Christians alone. Paul didn't. That doesn't sound like student of Gamaliel to me.

And you are quite mistaken. You do not have to be perfect in order to be considered righteous. That is not the teaching of the Tanakh.

Righteousness in the eyes of men is different to righteousness in the eyes of God. Men look upon outward appearances but God looks upon the heart.

Who are you trying to please?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Righteousness in the eyes of men is different to righteousness in the eyes of God. Men look upon outward appearances but God looks upon the heart.

Who are you trying to please?

I'm quite fine with how the word righteousness is used in the Tanakh. Over and over it speaks of the righteous man as opposed to the foolish man. Obviously this sort of talk assumes the existence of righteous people -- and that would mean that the standard for righteousness is NOT perfection.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm quite fine with how the word righteousness is used in the Tanakh. Over and over it speaks of the righteous man as opposed to the foolish man. Obviously this sort of talk assumes the existence of righteous people -- and that would mean that the standard for righteousness is NOT perfection.

Paul describes himself as righteous before the law.
Philippians 3:5,6. 'Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.'

Yet this same Paul, who considered himself blameless before the written law, goes on to say, 'Yea doubtless, and l count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom l have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that l may win Christ,
And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousmess which is of God by faith:'

From what Paul says, it is clear that he makes a distinction between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God.

But by whose righteousness is sin to be judged? [IMO] In this world, you can be righteous in the eyes of the law yet unrighteous in the eyes of God.

The Tanakh and New Testament conclude that all men have sinned.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Paul describes himself as righteous before the law.
Philippians 3:5,6. 'Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.'

Yet this same Paul, who considered himself blameless before the written law, goes on to say, 'Yea doubtless, and l count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom l have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that l may win Christ,
And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousmess which is of God by faith:'

From what Paul says, it is clear that he makes a distinction between the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God.

But by whose righteousness is sin to be judged? [IMO] In this world, you can be righteous in the eyes of the law yet unrighteous in the eyes of God.

The Tanakh and New Testament conclude that all men have sinned.

The thing is, I don't believe Paul. I think Paul has misled many. He may be in your Bible, but he's not in mine.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The thing is, I don't believe Paul. I think Paul has misled many. He may be in your Bible, but he's not in mine.

Paul is not in the Tanakh but the foundation of his teaching comes from the Tanakh. To deny Paul is, in effect, denying the Tanakh because he gains his understanding from the words of God, both written and living (the Holy Spirit).

In Genesis 15:6 it says, 'Abram believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness'.

Abram was, in the eyes of the Lord, righteous, because he heard the words of the Lord and he did as he was instructed. The words he followed were not a written instruction received via another man, they were heard directly. This makes Abraham a man of faith.

In Romans 4, Paul explains this at length. He says, 'For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.'

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Paul is not in the Tanakh but the foundation of his teaching comes from the Tanakh.

So untrue. The Torah gives God's laws for Israel, and the Prophets harp on obedience obedience obedience. There is nothing, NOTHING in the Tanakh that says "remember to believe in the Messiah when he comes so that you can go to heaven."

Rather than continue to the teaching of obedience in the Tanakh, Paul chiseled away at lawfulness. He taught that observing sabbath and avoiding foods sacrificed to idols was optional, entirely the decision of the person. He said there was nothing important about circumcision. And worst of all, he taught that the Law brought a curse. What kind of God did Paul follow, that would bring Israel out of slavery only to burden them with a curse?